> Bruce commented, based on >> Alex's words: >> IRONICALLY, the one and only problem that could possibly be ascribed to >> working "in place" is _exactly_ (and coincidentally) the one described >> in the (original) subject of this thread.
> I don't know where anyone said that you shouldn't update packages in > place. Except for glibc, I've been doing it when required for years. In the reply to my OP on this thread, Ken wrote: "And at the risk of boring people, and attracting scorn from those who *do* update glibc versions in-place, I repeat that the only recommended way to update glibc versions on LFS is to make a new build on a different partition." This is not the first time I hear the "no-no in place" recommendation on this site. It may have been always only when talking about glibc - I'm not sure. If always about _glibc_ only, I sincerely apologize. In an any case, I for one, never ever made any particular distinction among packages in this respect. Speaking of glibc, my records of upgrades from whatever I started with in 2005 (and maybe later) show at least, 2009-07-22 glibc-2.10.1 2011-12-30 glibc-2.14.1 and now happily at 2.15. All I can say, I never knew I had been playing with fire all this time, while I posted successfully (?) on whatever glibc du-jour I was on. Uff da. Another reminder that ignorance is bliss. I made my case that the problem on upgrading to glibc was, in my opinion, caused by a careless GCC mistake on my part, easily fixed, the machine was healthy and stable before, during (including the make failure) and after. OTOH, I did submit my glibc story to "in place" public scrutiny, and I think I'm man enough (?) to accept the resulting opprobrium now. > As for updating gcc, the better instructions for gcc are in BLFS, not LFS. In my thread, "gcc-4.5.1 (BLFS) vs. gcc-4.7.0 (LFS)" where I (at 4.5.1) was wondering why in order to upgrade to 4.7.0 BLFS was so much behind, I got this answer from Andy: "I think the version of GCC in BLFS is neglected because none of the current editors use any of those compilers. I just need a C and C++ compiler so the GCC installed in LFS is fine for me. If I were you I'd install GCC-4.7 with the configure switches from chapter 6 of current LFS." <linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/blfs-support/2012-May/069921.html> > BTW, this entire thread should be in LFS support, not BLFS support. If the Majordomo of this site needs my opinion/approval to move the thread to LFS, here it is: 100% yes. FWIW, my choice was based on a couple of criteria: - I consider myself a full BLFS guy now (with just an LFS pedigree and interest). - The subject I was dealing with seemed to me a little too heavy for the average LFS reader. Thanks, -- Alex -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
